https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114231 Where transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) was available for captively consumed goods, valuation could not be shifted to the comparable-goods mechanism under Rule 6(b)(ii); the price under Section 4(1)(a) had to be used for those goods. For the remaining goods, valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) on actual profit was accepted, but the extended limitation period was unavailable because there was no suppression or intent to evade duty, especially where a similar margin had earlier been accepted and credit would remain available within the assessee's own factory. The demand was therefore confined to the normal period, and consequential interest under Section 11AB could not be levied. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 May 2012 13:41:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114231 Where transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) was available for captively consumed goods, valuation could not be shifted to the comparable-goods mechanism under Rule 6(b)(ii); the price under Section 4(1)(a) had to be used for those goods. For the remaining goods, valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) on actual profit was accepted, but the extended limitation period was unavailable because there was no suppression or intent to evade duty, especially where a similar margin had earlier been accepted and credit would remain available within the assessee's own factory. The demand was therefore confined to the normal period, and consequential interest under Section 11AB could not be levied. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114231